Hanging Out at Dan's

Ignore at your Peril

"Hopscotch". That was your initial reaction to
the way the play in a game of Go jumps around
from one area to another. Understanding the dynamics
underlying the apparent agreement that one place is
played out, and another requires attention, is a basic
challenge for the beginner.

How does it seem now, from the height of your
experience of around 50 games played?

"I'm still not sure about when you
can safely ignore your opponent's last play. But
I do see that there are usually plenty of other
interesting moves, if you are able to take the
initiative."

One way to use a computer to study Go, now that game
files and programs to read them are easily obtained,
is to observe how strong players allocate their plays
to different parts of the board. Without trying
to understand the fine detail of the sequences, it
is possible to follow the play as a collection of
"phrases" local to one fight. Forcing moves
played and then left to fend for themselves are one of
the more striking phenomena seen, when you look at games
punctuated in this way.

So, let's consider the business of recognising
threats. Any strategic game involves the
threat/parry mechanism; and moves up to a higher level
of play when both players are capable of seeing the
ordinary types of threats, and responding in an apt way.

Go constantly throws up transparent threats to capture
(atari plays). Threats to kill, by taking away
the two eyes in a group, can be much more obscure. The
correct way to treat them, from the point of view of
long term improvement, is to rely on your own analysis -
don't be bullied into answering them just because
the opponent glares significantly at that part of the
board while making the play.

Threats to break into territory must be treated with
great respect. If you have more than one weakness in
your territory - for example two cutting points in close
proximity - or if there are some presumed dead stones
of your opponent's stranded inside it, there is a fair
chance that in combination with a move on the outside,
some tactic for breaking in will succeed.
Again you ought to trust your own careful analysis, rather
than playing "just to be on the safe side".

Threats to cut, "peeps" in Go terminology, are an
important factor in the cut-and-thrust of fighting. In
this example Black 1 peeps, and White 2 connects. Then
Black 3 is a good attacking play. The effect of Black 1
is to hamper White's development. Black needn't spend
time defending this stone if White later turns to attack it.

This example of a peep is a little different. White
1 and 3 are a good attacking combination. But White
shouldn't omit 3.

If Black had a chance to play the triangle stone, after
the peep and connection, it would be a very handy
improvement in the Black group's shape. White would
regret having played the peep in the first place.

When it comes to playing handicap Go, it is most
important for Black to recognise White's threats.
Typical is this contact play White 1. You'd have thought
that the threat was obvious. White has played once in
contact with the Black stone on the side. A second such
play and White will have a local advantage.

It is surprising how often Black jumps away from the
crucial area of fighting, with a play like 2. Here
perhaps Black's idea is to preserve territory in the
left-hand corner. However this gives White a moment's
respite, in which to build a viable group on the side.
As shown, the sequence is a contrast between Black's
ponderous play and White's agility, ending with the
right-hand corner coming under a double-approach attack.

It is one of the more reliable rules for playing Go
that contact plays should be treated as threats. Black
should answer White at one of the points A, B, C or D.
Which one matters less than the principle of keeping one
step ahead in the contact fight. There are cases where
contact plays are ignored, to do with ladder-breakers or
ko threats; but local disadvantage can always be
expected to follow.